Sunday, May 21, 2017

UNITED NATIONS, May 18 – When Google X's Astro Teller came to the UN on May 17, he bragged about Google's work bringing Internet, with balloons, to areas where it's needed. Inner City Press asked Teller what Google has done during Cameroon's 94-day intentional Internet cut-off in Cameroon, and why it allows the use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for censorship, by governments against opponents and, with regard to the UN, a censor from Reuters and now HRW, here. Video here. Teller quickly said he's not from that Google, only Google X. He said Google's Internet balloons are like "threads" to connect rural areas with the ISP of the same country. But in Cameroon, the cut off was to "Silicon Mountain." Shouldn't Google have said and done something? With these large social media platforms like Google and Facebook vowing to use algorithms to prevent terrorist recruitment and for other purposes, the crudeness of results, intended or not, has come to the fore. Now Google's YouTube is engaged in systematic financial censoring of independent videos about censorship. Like many independent media, Inner City Press publishes its coverage and associatedcommentary not only on its website but on a number of third party platforms like YouTube, Twitter,Facebook, Scribd and SoundCloud. YouTube is owned by Google, and like its parent allows publishers to monetize their material with advertisements.

But do YouTube and Google behind it engage in censorship? As Inner City Press ramps up its fight against the eviction of its shared office in the United Nations while asking questions about UN corruption, it has received a series of e-mails from YouTube that its videos on these topics "cannot be monetized" with ads. On May 5, it received this email denying monetization to a video filmed in UN Conference Room 2 during the UN's World Press Freedom Day event, a Press question to the UN about its lack of compliance with its claims. The email said, "We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly.'ICP asks UN about evicting Press, WIPO & FAO suing media. DPI: we're committed to #PressFreedom.'"

On May 4, Google issued a final, non-appealable denial on monetization to a video of a UN Q&A about Kurdistan and Sri Lanka: "After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized."At UN on Countering Violent Extremism, ICP Asks CTED & Iraq NGO of Kurdish Women Fighters, Sri Lanka"YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization." Google also said this video couldn't be monetized: "Inner City Press Asks CPJ To Push UN for Press Freedom Rules, HRW's UN Rep Dodges on DMCA Censorship" - after Google gave in to a frivolous request from athen-Reuters, now-HRW rep who claimed his anti-Press email to the UN was copyrighted. (This Louis Charbonneau dodged the question on May 3 at the EU Mission to the UN, here). This is doubly disgusting: Google is denying monetization to a Q&A about its own censorship. So, question: does Google have an algorithm to deny monetization to independent content which criticizes it?

On April 23 YouTube similarly went back todeny monetization to Inner City Press videos about Yemen, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Darfur, the Golan Heights, DRC, Gaza, Ukraine, Qatar, UN censorship. On April 24, Google / YouTube denied Inner City Press' appeal and irrevocably denied monetization to these (compare to longer list below and marvel and the "logic" of this censorship).

After reviewing your videos, we’ve confirmed that the content in your videos or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your videos can’t be monetized.

Google has, on appeal, said "After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized.YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization." This final Ban of monetization applies for example to:

This is the opposite of what Google and similar mega-platforms claim to be doing. Facebook, as another example, talks about flying Internet-distributing drones over Africa. So why haven't they done so over Southern Cameroons in the past 55 days? These platforms should be urged on these issues. On this censorship of the Press by denying or delaying monetization, it seems clear that someone or something has gotten Google's YouTube to do it. We'll have more on this.

Last week, monetization was similar denied for an Inner City Press video about being ordered out of the UN Press Briefing Room for a "French only" briefing by outgoing French president Francois Hollande, murkily arranged by the UN's still holding-over spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

On March 4, monetization not only of Q&As involving Sri Lanka and Ukraine and Yemen has been blocked - now, even a video from inside the UN Press Briefing Room, an exposé of UN censorship. Google's YouTube wrote:

"We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly.

This was the "precedent" Dujarric wanted to erase, to claim that Inner City Press standing the principled stand that the UN Press Briefing Room has to be for all, not just some chosen, journalists."UNcensored 1-4: Evicted from the UN For Investigative Reporting, by Matthew Russell Lee"" The emails said “Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown... We depend on our user community to flag inappropriate videos to us for our review.”

Even after appeal, videos whose titles including the word "Nusra" for example are deemed ineligible for monetization.

This is no longer a mis-application of a terrorism screen. This is a pattern at Google, see here.These are video of questions and answers (sometimes) at the UN, of protests in the streets of New York, etc. Inner City Press has written, to Monetization then to Press [at] YouTube.com:

“The videos you are saying are “not advertiser-friendly” are videos of media questions and answers with United Nations spokespeople and diplomats. They are news. The message sent yesterday and today said “you can request an additional review below” - this is a request for review. Look at the videos: they are Q&As in the UN Press Briefing Room.

Please confirm receipt and review the above and restore monetization, answering the question. Google and YouTube should not be involved in any form of censorship, including the denial of monetization of news footage."

Now on February 26, YouTube has sent this:

"Hi Inner City Press, After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized.

YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization."

So, like at the UN on unilateral decisions to target, evict and restrict particular media, and like some decisions by Twitter to which we will next turn, there is no appeal. (UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who has bragged about the UN's "use" of YouTube, ran out when Inner City Press asked about this, here.) This is UNacceptable. We'll have more on this.